Member's statement: Integrated Services for Children and Young People
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 March 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Integrated Services for Children and Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254023
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to put on the record my concerns about yet another funding cut by the Department of Health. The cut is to core grant funding that is provided to vital community organisations across Northern Ireland but particularly to those in my constituency. Integrated services for children and young people, which is provided by the Greater Shankill Partnership, gives support to families most in need across north and west Belfast. The programme ensures that children receive the support that they need and that families are given extra resources to help them meet their health inequality needs.
The Department of Health has indicated that the £185,000 that was awarded last year to integrated services has been removed and that the Minister currently cannot confirm that the funding will continue. That is a matter of major concern, not just for the employees of integrated services who are based on the Shankill Road but for the hundreds of families who currently use its services or who are currently on the waiting list to get the support that they need. The job of the House and of each elected Member is to serve the interests of the most vulnerable in our society. The communities of west Belfast, on both sides of the Shankill Road, need that vital service. I therefore call on the Minister of Health to reinstate the £185,000 funding without delay and to provide the service to my constituents and those across Belfast.
241 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.41 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.